Evaluating the Potential of Technology in Justice Systems Using Goal Modeling

  • Sanaa Alwidian
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Gilbert Babin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 289)


Context: In Canada, the justice system suffers from performance and efficiency issues as indicated by long wait time before trial. Actors in the justice system are seeking solutions involving emerging information technology. Problem: There is need to guide the selection of appropriate combinations of technologies supporting or improving justice systems, yet there is no adapted approach focusing on this concern. Objective: This paper aims to develop the basis of a modeling approach supporting the selection of technologies relevant to justice systems. Method: Goal-oriented requirements modeling is used to describe and evaluate the contribution of technology in the context of justice systems, with the help of an illustrative example targeting the improvement of access to justice. Results: The example shows that it is feasible to model the technology alternatives and their contributions to the goals of different stakeholders in justice systems so that selected technologies are well-aligned with the needs of such systems. Goal models also support trade-off analysis in this context. Conclusion: A justice-aware modeling approach has the potential of helping justice stakeholders to better reason about technology selection and document the rationale of their choices. There are however many remaining challenges in the generalization of the approach to other cases and in its validation in practice.


Access to justice Cyberjustice Goal-oriented requirement language Justice systems Requirement engineering Technology selection 



This work was supported by the Towards Cyberjustice project, funded by Canada’s SSHRC Major Collaborative Research Initiative program. We also thank Jane Bailey for her support and for useful discussions.


  1. 1.
    Akhigbe, O., Alhaj, M., Amyot, D., Badreddin, O., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Richards, G., Mussbacher, G.: Creating quantitative goal models: governmental experience. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 466–473. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_40 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alleweldt, F., et al.: Cross-border alternative dispute resolution in the european union. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament, IP/A/IMCO/ST/2010-15 PE464.424 (2011). Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  3. 3.
    Alwidian, S.A., Amyot, D.: Towards systems for increased access to justice using goal modeling. In: Eight International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW 2015), pp. 33–36. IEEE CS (2015). doi: 10.1109/RELAW.2015.7330209
  4. 4.
    Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards Advanced Goal Model Analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, Laks V., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aranda, G.N., Vizcaino, A., Echich, A., Piattini, M.: Technology selection to improve global collaboration. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2006), pp. 223–232. IEEE CS (2006). doi: 10.1109/ICGSE.2006.261236
  6. 6.
    Ayala, C., Franch, X.: A goal-oriented strategy for supporting commercial off-the-shelf components selection. In: Morisio, M. (ed.) ICSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4039, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11763864_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bailey, J.: Reopening law’s gate: public interest standing and access to justice. UBC Law Rev. 44, 255–285 (2011). Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  8. 8.
    Bailey, J.: Digitization of court processes in Canada. Working Paper no. 2, Cyberjustice Laboratory, Canada, 23 October 2012. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  9. 9.
    Baresi, L., Pasquale, L., Spoletini, P.: Fuzzy goals for requirements-driven adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 125–134. IEEE CS (2010). doi: 10.1109/RE.2010.25
  10. 10.
    Benyekhlef, K., Amar, E., Callipel, V.: ICT-driven strategies for reforming access to justice mechanisms in developing Countries. World Bank Leg. Rev. 6, 325–343 (2015). doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0378-9_ch15 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benyekhlef, K., Callipel, V., Amar, E.: La médiation en ligne pour les conflits de basse intensité. Gazette du Palais 87, 17–22 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridenback, M.L.: Study of state trial courts use of remote technology. NAPCO, Final report, April 2016. Last Accessed 27 Jan 2017
  13. 13.
    Brown, S.: Standardized technology evaluation process (step) user’s guide and methodology for evaluation teams. Mitre Corporation (2007). Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017
  14. 14.
    Cares, C., Franch, X.: 3MSF: a framework to select mobile office devices. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Appl. 6(5), 121–144 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan, F.T.S., Chan, M.H., Tang, N.K.H.: Evaluation methodologies for technology selection. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 107(1–3), 330–337 (2000). doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00679-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    eJury, L.L.C.: eJury – the online trial experience. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017
  17. 17.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A systematic review of goal-oriented requirements management frameworks for business process compliance. In: 4th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW), pp. 25–34. IEEE CS (2011). doi: 10.1109/RELAW.2011.6050270
  18. 18.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Rifaut, A., Dubois, E.: Goal-oriented compliance with multiple regulations. In: 22nd IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2014), pp. 73–82. IEEE CS (2014). doi: 10.1109/RE.2014.6912249
  19. 19.
    Grance, T., Stevens, M., Myers, M.: Guide to selecting information technology security products. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-36 (2003). Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017
  20. 20.
    Hassine, J., Amyot, D.: A questionnaire-based survey methodology for systematically validating goal-oriented models. Requirements Eng. 21(2), 285–308 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00766-015-0221-7. SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Houseman, O., Tiwari, A., Roy, R.: A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry. Decision Engineering Report Series. Cranfield University, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ingolfo, S., Jureta, I., Siena, A., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Nòmos 3: legal compliance of roles and requirements. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 275–288. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_22 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 14102:2008, Information technology – Guideline for the evaluation and selection of CASE tools (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ITU-T, Recommendation Z.151 (10/12): User Requirements Notation (URN) - Language Definition, Geneva, Switzerland (2012).
  25. 25.
    Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass, Wiley (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Schultz, T.: Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lamb, M., Gregory M.J.: Industrial concerns in technology selection. In: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET 1997), pp. 206–212. IEEE CS (1997). doi: 10.1109/PICMET.1997.653333
  28. 28.
    MacCoun, R.J., Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R.: Alternative dispute resolution in trial and appellate courts. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology and Law, Part 2, pp. 95–118. Springer, New York, (1992). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_6
  29. 29.
    Maeno, Y., Nitta, K., Ohsawa, Y.: Reflective visualization of dispute resolution. In: IEEE SMC 2009, pp. 1698–1703. IEEE CS (2009). doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346821
  30. 30.
    Mussbacher, G., Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D.: Modeling and analysis of urn goals and scenarios with jUCMNav. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2009), pp. 383–384. IEEE CS (2009). doi: 10.1109/RE.2009.56.
  31. 31.
    Ondrus, J., Bui, T., Pigneur, Y.: A multi-actor, multi-criteria approach for technology selection when designing mobile information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Kautz, K., Allen, D. (eds.) MOBIS 2005. ITIFIP, vol. 191, pp. 271–278. Springer, Boston, MA (2005). doi: 10.1007/0-387-31166-1_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pourshahid, A., Chen, P., Amyot, D., Forster, A.J., Ghanavati, S., Peyton, L., Weiss, M.: Business process management with the user requirements notation. Electron. Commer. Res. 9(4), 269–316 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s10660-009-9039-z. Springer USCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27. Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017
  34. 34.
    Senécal, F., Benyekhlef, K.: Groundwork for assessing the legal risks of cyberjustice. Can. J. Law Technol. 7(1), 41–56 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shehabuddeen, N., Probert, D., Phaal, R.: From theory to practice: challenges in operationalizing a technology selection framework. Technovation 26(3), 324–335 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tawhid, R., Alhaj, M., Mussbacher, G., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Behnam, S.A., Richards, G.: Towards outcome-based regulatory compliance in aviation security. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2012), pp. 267–272. IEEE CS (2012). doi: 10.1109/RE.2012.6345813
  37. 37.
    Tan, K.H., Noble, J., Sato, Y., Tse, Y.K.: A marginal analysis guided technology evaluation and selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 131(1), 15–21 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.09.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tyler, T.: Access to justice a ‘basic right’. The Toronto Star, Canada, 12 August 2007.
  39. 39.
    UNCITRAL: Working Group III, Online Dispute Resolution. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Vienna, Austria (2016).
  40. 40.
    van den Herik, J.: Towards crowd sourced online dispute resolution. J. Int. Commercial Technol. 7(2), 99–111 (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyHEC MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations